Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The only grievance of petitioner is that he has not been paid retiral dues though he has retired on 31.7.1997.

2. In the counter-affidavit the respondents have given the reason that service record of petitioner could not be verified by them and “no objection certificate” has not been produced by petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner absconded from duty frequently and, therefore, there was break in his service. It is further submitted that the petitioner could not make available photograph and other necessary documents for the purposes of pension despite several reminders and as such, in absence of requisite documents for sanction of pension, the retiral dues could not be paid in time for which petitioner was solely responsible.

4. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on 17.1.1964 as Gram Sewak and continued to work as such till 31.7.1997 when he retired from service. On 31.7.1997, for the first time, the respondents’ Department served an order upon petitioner that on attaining the age of superannuation, he would retire on 31.7.1997 and he is expected to furnish papers relating to pension in the office so that pension papers may be sent to the concerned department for sanction. The aforesaid order was complied by the petitioner but due to non-availability of petitioner’s Service Book, which is maintained by the Department itself, pension could not be sanctioned. Despite several representations of petitioner time and again, he failed to get anything. In the meantime correspondence between the authorities with respect to grant of pension was going on but all in vain. It is also asserted by petitioner that due to inaction of respondent authorities and non-availability of Service Book, petitioner’s retiral benefits could not have been sanctioned and he is at the verge of starvation.

5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. On material aspect for not sanctioning pension within time, there is no satisfactory reply in the counter-affidavit, it is skatchy and no proper and specific reply of the assertions made in the writ petition has been given.

6. From a perusal of record, it is evident that respondents have failed in their duty to give the pensionary/retiral benefits to petitioner within time or a reasonable time, which they were bound to do, under law. No suitable explanation has been given in the counter-affidavit for denying retiral benefits to the petitioner for such a long time.

7. Today, one cannot dispute that pension has attained the status of fundamental right, a facet of right to earn livelihood enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Pension and retiral benefits have been held deferred wages which an employee earn by rendering service for a particular length of time. This is what was held by Apex Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130. This proposition is almost settled. To defer this right of an employee for an unreasonably long period, one must have an authority in law which more or the less must be specific and clear. On the mere pretext of caution, such right cannot be made to suffer in any manner. Whenever such an occasion is brought to notice, this Court has risen to protect the poor and helpless retired employee.

8. Besides above, it is also evident from record that petitioner retired from service on 31.7.1997 but due to non availability of service record he could not be paid retiral benefit within time. Maintenance of service record is the responsibility of respondent authorities. If it is not traceable, the petitioner cannot be blamed and made to suffer. According to paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit, certain payments were mae in June and July, 2005 i.e. after about 8 years of the retirement.

9. A system controlled by bureaucrats can create wrangles to device something which is formulated by policy makers for the ben